| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've alluded to this idea a few times and wanted to call a little more attention to it in the last leg of the playtest. If it's been posted as a thread before, my apologies, I stopped following discussion as closely once most of the major points had been made.
My first reading of the rules for Summoners and their Eidolons sharing results (but taking the worst "more severe" possible effect) wasn't correct. I thought it was pretty nice. People on the forums thought that they each rolled and took the worst result between the two, which is basically a misfortune effect except with different proficiency/circumstantial bonuses. This has been discussed forwards and backwards, but it seems a fair amount of people don't like it while the rest just think it's tactically neutral.
My first interpretation was that one roll was made for both characters, and then it was adjusted by their individual proficiency/circumstantial modifiers separately and the worst result of the two final results was taken. And I haven't seen much to indicate this wouldn't be a better way to go about it. If their connection is strong enough to share HP, I think it's in-theme to also share their instinctual approach to reflexes/resilience/willfulness when they're close enough to get caught by the same effect.
As far as I can tell, it's a small defensive buff since having the same base result and then modifying separately can never be worse than the current system, it's less swingy/frustrating to adjust a result down one stage (because the Summoner's not as chunky as their Eidolon friend or Eidolon friend was called fat by a Swashbuckler) than two or even three (because of wildly different rolls outweighing their individual statistics), and it means one less roll you need to make every time you're both caught in an effect you have to react to. Maybe this idea could also be generalized out a bit for other rough patches or similar situations I'm not thinking of, like needing to roll Perception as a pseudo-save or something.
What do you all think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've alluded to this idea a few times and wanted to call a little more attention to it in the last leg of the playtest. If it's been posted as a thread before, my apologies, I stopped following discussion as closely once most of the major points had been made.
My first reading of the rules for Summoners and their Eidolons sharing results (but taking the
worst"more severe" possible effect) wasn't correct. I thought it was pretty nice. People on the forums thought that they each rolled and took the worst result between the two, which is basically a misfortune effect except with different proficiency/circumstantial bonuses. This has been discussed forwards and backwards, but it seems a fair amount of people don't like it while the rest just think it's tactically neutral.My first interpretation was that one roll was made for both characters, and then it was adjusted by their individual proficiency/circumstantial modifiers separately and the worst result of the two final results was taken. And I haven't seen much to indicate this wouldn't be a better way to go about it. If their connection is strong enough to share HP, I think it's in-theme to also share their instinctual approach to reflexes/resilience/willfulness when they're close enough to get caught by the same effect.
As far as I can tell, it's a small defensive buff since having the same base result and then modifying separately can never be worse than the current system, it's less swingy/frustrating to adjust a result down one stage (because the Summoner's not as chunky as their Eidolon friend or Eidolon friend was called fat by a Swashbuckler) than two or even three (because of wildly different rolls outweighing their individual statistics), and it means one less roll you need to make every time you're both caught in an effect you have to react to. Maybe this idea could also be generalized out a bit for other rough patches or similar situations I'm not thinking of, like needing to roll Perception as a pseudo-save or something....
First I'm assuming your proposed solution would only be used in those cases where both the Eidolon and Summoner are both in the area or otherwise targeted by the same effect. Not that you are suggesting that you always use this combined method for all effects (even when only one half of the PC was targeted)
Some people like rolling more, they won't like it. Some people may view it is adding additional complexity, as you don't normally add different values to a single roll to determine effects. However, the reality of the situation is that when 'determining combined effect' situation happens, you are having to follow a new set of rules, so your suggestion isn't much more complex than the current rules.
This method takes away the natural misfortune effect baked into it. This actually allows the addition of both fortune and misfortune options/effects to be applied to it, which expands options. It also still leaves room for optional rules to either allow both sides to roll independently and take the higher rolls, or to simply take the better of the two effects calculated off of the one unified roll.
So, I'd say it is a worthwhile option for the Developers to consider.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely easier: you just roll once, using the worse modifier of the two. Not bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the simplicity of it, but it does feel like a pretty significant boost to survivability - to the point where I don't know that it'd be a 'free' improvement.
Its not a bad idea, for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that just using the worse of the two modifiers is much simpler to execute. I want to say it would technically be a buff, but I'm not sure it's a significant one - I'd have to run the numbers but I suspect that since you already had to use the worse outcome that it doesn't shift the average value much.
The roll twice, take the worst math is absolutely less predictable, but I think that generally in DnD 5e Disadvantage is generally considered to be "worth" somewhere between -3 to -5 on a roll. Mathematically, it may just be -3.4 (rounded) or so.
That's a pretty significant penalty, and the worst case scenario in PF2e tends to be around -3 if you take the worse of two saves (I'm thinking 16 dex on the Eidolon, 10 dex on the Summoner) and roll just once.
So in any case where you're only losing 1-2 from your roll, its a huge boost from roll twice and take the worst.
That said, if they want a easier to resolve but still big penalty for AoEs... it'd probably be easier to tune just letting the Summoner roll whichever save is better with a -3 flat (or whatever tuned value they want) circumstance penalty if both Summoner and Eidolon are effected by the same damage dealing ability.
At least that way, the penalty is both transparent to the player and predictable to a designer.
I like it.
Also, it can trigger hero points ( if you roll a 5 and a 3 and can just reroll once it's definitely a problem ).
Yeah i don't think a hero point would let you re-roll twice
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shared effect for HP/action is a mess as soon as you look outside of the most basic slow and/or aoe damage spell.
Yeah, honestly, there really is a lot shared HP/effects/actions screws with that the Summoner class would need an FAQ entirely dedicated to itself, if not a rewrite of several rules to include concessions or exceptions to the Summoner.
Again, this is new territory for 2e, there are going to be a lot of newly introduced mechanics in SoM.
I just don't feel heavy rule contradictions on what people are assuming is "implied" (Such as the idea that the Summoner being tripped if the Eidolon is tripped is reasonable) is a good way to go about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't feel heavy rule contradictions on what people are assuming is "implied" (Such as the idea that the Summoner being tripped if the Eidolon is tripped is reasonable) is a good way to go about it.
Its not hard for them to fix this in the final write up by being slightly more clear that this only applies to damage and specific conditions, if that's the intent.
Its not a huge fix, and certainly doesn't make a huge FAQ a certainty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely like this as it's not as punishing as a misfortune effect. So from a player perspective, this is good.
That being said, it's also disingenuous to propose simply because they are still two separate entities whom should still be treated as such in this case. For two PCs whom are targeted, they have to roll separately. A summoner and eidolon should behave the same way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if its "only damage", there are many abilities that do "damage and something else". Which then has to be adjudicated because do you now make 3 rolls, or is it still 2? And what roll should be used to determine the effect?
I just don't feel heavy rule contradictions on what people are assuming is "implied" (Such as the idea that the Summoner being tripped if the Eidolon is tripped is reasonable) is a good way to go about it.Its not hard for them to fix this in the final write up by being slightly more clear that this only applies to damage and specific conditions, if that's the intent.
Its not a huge fix, and certainly doesn't make a huge FAQ a certainty.
Krispy's Personal Rewrite of Shared Conditions and Damage
If either the Summoner or Eidolon is subject to an effect that changes the total number of actions a character may perform (Slowed, Stunned, Quickened, etc.) Reduce or increase their total number of shared actions accordingly. If there are limits on what types of actions are granted by one of these effects, only the affected character may spend the extra action.
If the Summoner or Eidolon is affected by an effect or condition that specifies how a character must use their actions (such as Confused or the Irresistible Dance spell), then each affected character must spend at least one of their shared actions on the actions required by the effect, if possible. Any remaining actions may be used by either character at your discretion - though some effects may require all actions spent on either character to be used in a certain way.
If the Summoner and their Eidolon are both targeted by or subject to the same effect, action or activity (etc.) apply damage from the effect only once. If an attack roll is used for the activity, action or effect, apply the results of the most successful attack roll. If a saving throw is required, roll the saving throw only once using the Save value of the Summoner or the Eidolon (whichever is better), with a -3 circumstance penalty. Non-damage effects of such an attack or ability are applied to both the Summoner and the Eidolon, so long as both are valid targets to receive the non-damage portion of the effect (for example, an Activity that allowed an attacker to make a Strike against one target and a Trip against another would apply the results of their more successful attack roll, dealing damage as appropriate but only tripping the target of the trip attempt).
****
What did I forget to cover?
Yeah i don't think a hero point would let you re-roll twiceI like it.
Also, it can trigger hero points ( if you roll a 5 and a 3 and can just reroll once it's definitely a problem ).
It lets you reroll one check. In an instance like True Strike, it technically does, as it is still one check.
Krispy's Personal Rewrite of Shared Conditions and DamageIf either the Summoner or Eidolon is subject to an effect that changes the total number of actions a character may perform (Slowed, Stunned, Quickened, etc.) Reduce or increase their total number of shared actions accordingly. If there are limits on what types of actions are granted by one of these effects, only the affected character may spend the extra action.
If the Summoner or Eidolon is affected by an effect or condition that specifies how a character must use their actions (such as Confused or the Irresistible Dance spell), then each affected character must spend at least one of their shared actions on the actions required by the effect, if possible. Any remaining actions may be used by either character at your discretion - though some effects may require all actions spent on either character to be used in a certain way.
If the Summoner and their Eidolon are both targeted by or subject to the same effect, action or activity (etc.) apply damage from the effect only once. If an attack roll is used for the activity, action or effect, apply the results of the most successful attack roll. If a saving throw is required, roll the saving throw only once using the Save value of the...
Healing (Found in original playtest text), resistance (How does resistance work if the Eidolon has DR Fire/5 but the Summoner takes Burning Hands to the face?), and immunity (Does something like Battle Medicine mean you can't double-dip if you're sharing HP?).
I like your rewrite though; distinguishing effect, action, and activity is good to include in the text, if that's the intention or desire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing (Found in original playtest text), resistance (How does resistance work if the Eidolon has DR Fire/5 but the Summoner takes Burning Hands to the face?), and immunity(Does something like Battle Medicine mean you can't double-dip if you're sharing HP?).
I like your rewrite though; distinguishing effect, action, and activity is good to include in the text.
Can change "apply damage only once" to "apply damage or healing", should be a simple fix.
"Resistance or immunity to damage only apply in only the weakest form possessed by either the Summoner or Eidolon relative to the attack or effect." I think that'd work and is relatively clear. I feel like it could be simpler somehow.
I think the Battle Medicine thing isn't necessarily unclear as it stands, but we could definitely clear it up. What if we prefaced all of the above with the statement, "The Summoner and the Eidolon are seperate creatures whom share an intimate mental bond. They are independently targeted and effected by abilities and effects, except as described below."
I would definitely like this as it's not as punishing as a misfortune effect. So from a player perspective, this is good.
That being said, it's also disingenuous to propose simply because they are still two separate entities whom should still be treated as such in this case. For two PCs whom are targeted, they have to roll separately. A summoner and eidolon should behave the same way.
Um. Is "disingenuous" the word you mean to use there? I gave my reasoning for why I think it'd make sense in the flavor of the Summoner-Eidolon bond. I'm not lying when I say that I thought this was how it worked in the first place, and it makes more sense to me than the current mechanism.
Also, in light of the fringe issues, I'd like to be extra clear that my proposal only applied to the scenario where both the Summoner and the Eidolon would be caught in the same AOE and take the worse shared results of their two rolls, under the logic that things which affects them as one creature (damage and action-modification, mostly) should also only have one roll they just both need to have decent enough modifiers on. I wouldn't mind expanding the proposal to suggest one base roll for both even if the effects are individual, just to keep things simpler/more consistent — it simply isn't strictly necessary in my book, since it's less common to come up against AOE effects that don't include the things they share, so it shouldn't be too much mental load to assume a shared roll until otherwise stated (and keep in mind when it needs to be stated).
As for rider effects which don't fall under the shared category — say, a damaging (shared) AOE spell which causes Sickened (individual) — I don't think it really harms anything or is too complicated to keep the one roll and just distribute shared or individual effects as appropriate. As an example, if the roll on that sickening damage spell would be a success for the Summoner and a failure for the beast Eidolon's sensitive nose, then as a pair they'd take the damage listed in the failure effect, but the Summoner would take the success effect for purposes of being Sickened (or not) and the Eidolon would take the remaining failure effect too. Does this seem fair?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the term I want to use, because it's just not fair or even accurate compared to having 2 different PCs whom aren't Summoner/Eidolon being affected. If the intent behind Summoner/Eidolon is that it's no different than 2 PCs other than the exceptions listed (HP, action, and MAP sharing), then it should behave that way in every other respect. Including dice rolls and such. After all, they have different proficiencies and skills and stuff.
Unless I must have misread the OP that I thought was proposing that only the result changes on one dice roll based on modifiers and not based on two separate dice rolls with their own modifiers simulating Summoner and Eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'd be astounded if this change hasn't already been in Mark's notebook for weeks now. He's a smart cookie, and I have every confidence the final version will be great.
The only concern I have is whether I will be able to give my dire porcupine Beast Eidolon persistent piercing damage on a crit...